FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
RULES AND GUIDELINES
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
RULES AND GUIDELINES
1.0
Name Datuk Wira Dr. Abdul Rahman Arshad Challenge Trophy English Language Debate Competition
2.0
Format 2.1 2.1
A team team rep represe resent ntin ing g a schoo chooll con consists ists of 3 main main deb debater aters s and 2 reserves.
2.2 2.2
The The propo proposi sitio tion n team team is know known n as the the Affirm Affirmat ativ ive e or the the Gover Governm nmen entt while the opposition team is known as the Negative or Opposition.
2.3 2.3
Allo Alloca cati tion on of time time and and spe speak akin ing g ord order er:: TUR
AFFIRMATIVE AFFIRMATIVE
TUR
N
TIME
N
1
1st Speaker
2
1st Speaker
8 minutes
3
2nd Speaker
4
2nd Speaker
8 minutes
5
3rd Speaker
6
3rd Speaker
8 minutes
8
Reply Speech
7
Reply Speech
4 minutes
1st / 2nd Affirmative
1st / 2nd Negative
2.4
The third ird debater from rom both teams shall not introduce any new arguments. Their role is mainly to rebut.
2.5 2.5
Whil While e the deba debate terr is speak speakin ing, g, the the oppos opposit itio ion n team team can offe offerr ‘Poin ‘Point( t(s) s) of Info Inform rmat atio ion’ n’ (for (forma mall inte interj rjec ectio tions ns). ). The The deba debate terr may may acce accept pt or decline it.
2.6 2.6
Afte Afterr all all the the deba debate ters rs have have spo spoke ken n onc once, e, the the 1st or 2nd debater of each side gives a reply speech with the Negative’s Reply Speech being delivered first followed by the Affirmative.
1
3.0
NEGATIVE
Eligibility
3.1
The competition is open to all students from Form 1 to 5 from all government-aided secondary schools under the purview of the Ministry of Education, Malaysia except residential schools.
3.2
A school is allowed to send only one team to participate in the competition.
3.3
Each team should comprise of at least one Bumiputera student (according to Article 153, The Malaysian Constitution) who is a speaking member of the team. Exceptions should be made if the student population consists of a particular ethnic group as the demographic in that school. 3.3.1 If there is evidence prior to, during or after the competition contrary to the declared status, the team will be disqualified.
3.4
4.0
Every member of a participating team should come from the same school. (Failure in doing so will result in disqualification)
Adjudication 4.1
A panel of at least 3 or 5 adjudicators will be appointed for all the rounds at all levels. The final debate at the national level will be adjudicated by a panel of 5 adjudicators, appointed by the Division of Co-curriculum and Arts, Ministry of Education.
4.2
Experienced adjudicators should be appointed and briefed on the rules of adjudication at least an hour before the debate.
4.3
Adjudicators should not adjudicate the team from their own schools / districts / states unless there are no adjudicators available.
4.4
Points will be allocated according to the scoresheet.
4.5
The debate will be won by the team which scores a majority of votes from the adjudicators on the panel. Scores awarded by adjudicators are not to be added together to decide the winner. Adjudicators decide the winner of the debate independently.
4.6
Immediately after a debate, the Speaker will collect the result slip from the Chief Adjudicator. There should be no discussions among the adjudicators when deciding the winner of the debate.
4.7
Once the scoresheets have been handed in, the adjudicators shall meet and confer to decide on the Best Debater. They shall refer to the adjudicators’ comment sheets to decide on the winner. 2
4.8
Individual marks will not be disclosed.
4.9
Prizes 4.9.1 Plaques and certificates of achievement will be awarded to the winning teams. 4.9.2 Certificates of participation will be awarded to all participating teams.
5.0
Procedure of Debate 5.1
The Debate Process 5.1.1 The debate topics will be given to the competing teams 2 weeks before the competition. 5.1.2 The teams will draw the stand ONE hour before a debate commences. 5.1.3 The draw should take place as scheduled. 5.1.4 Any team that is late would have to inform the organisers within 5 minutes of the scheduled time, failure of which, the team already present will be allowed to draw and quarantine time will commence. A grace period of not more than 30 minutes will be given to the team that is late after which quarantine time commences. 5.1.5 A team which is late (more than 5 minutes without information on their whereabouts) would automatically take on the other position contrary to what the team already present has drawn. The time for quarantine commences. 5.1.6 The team will then be quarantined in their quarantine rooms for ONE hour to prepare for the debate. The quarantine officers must be in the room with the team. 5.1.7 Only the team members competing (3 main debaters and 2 reserves) will be allowed in the quarantine room. The team members should not be in contact with any unauthorized personnel. 5.1.8 The team is allowed to use their own printed reference materials in the quarantine room. No electronic gadgets are allowed. 5.1.9 Teams are required to be seated at the debate venue(s) 5 minutes before the debate commences.
3
5.1.10 If any one team fails to show up 5 minutes after the quarantine time, the team will be disqualified. A walk over will be awarded to the team that is present. 5.1.11 Marks will be deducted under strategy if there is prompting from any individual other than the debaters during the quarantine time and the debate competition. 5.2
The Role of the Chairperson / Speaker 5.2.1 Each team will be chaired by a Chairperson who will be addressed as Mr. Speaker or Madam Speaker. 5.2.2 The Speaker is responsible for the smooth running of the debate. 5.2.3 The Speaker will read out the rules of the debate and then proceed to introduce the timekeeper, adjudicators and debaters. 5.2.4 The Speaker must refrain from making any comments concerning the debate or debaters during the debate. 5.2.5 The Speaker must ensure that the adjudicators be given enough time to fill in their marks and wait for the signal from the Chief Adjudicator before the next debater is called.
5.3
The Role of the Timekeeper 5.3.1 The Timekeeper must ensure that each debater is given 8 minutes to deliver his or her speech. 5.3.2 The Timekeeper will ring the bell once after the 1st minute and at the end of the 7th minute to signal the time allocated for Points of Information. At the end of the 8th minute, the bell will be rung twice. (Placards may be used by the timekeeper to indicate the remaining time left, at intervals of one minute.) 5.3.3 A maximum time of 3 minutes will be given to both teams to prepare for the Reply Speech. 5.3.4 During the Reply Speech, the Timekeeper will ring the bell once at the 3rd minute to signal that the debater has 1 minute left. At the end of the 4 th minute, the bell will be rung twice to signal the end of the debate. 4
6.0
Points of Information 6.1
A Point of Information is a formal interjection. It can be: i. ii. iii. iv.
a question a remark a clarification a correction of word(s) or statement(s).
6.2
A Point of Information may be offered by a member of the opposing team from the 2nd minute to the 7th minute of the time allocated to the debater. Points of Information are not allowed during the 1 st and final minutes of the speech. A bell will be rung to signal the beginning and the end of the time allocated for Points of Information.
6.3
A time limit of 15 seconds is allowed for each Point of Information. Therefore, the Points of Information put forth must be concise.
6.4
No heckling or harassment or barracking is allowed at any time during the debate.
6.5
Giving and taking Points of Information should be done politely. A debater is required to raise his or her hand and to stand when putting forth a Point of Information. Rude, abusive or aggressive behaviour in both instances will lead to a reduction of marks from the STYLE section.
6.6
A debater may either accept the Point of Information or decline it. If accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a question that deals with some issues of the debate (preferably one just made by the debater).
6.7
A debater MUST give or take at least 2 Points of Information during the course of the debate. 6.7.1 A debater who does not offer the minimum number of Points of Information will be marked down for SUBSTANCE and STRATEGY. 6.7.1.1
Substance for opportunities
failing
to
take
advantage
of
6.7.1.2
Strategy for failing to understand the role of the debater under this style
6.7.2 A debater who fails to accept any Points of Information would be marked down for SUBSTANCE AND STRATEGY. 5
6.7.2.1 6.7.2.2
Substance for failing to allow the other side to make their point Strategy for not understanding the role of the debater under this style or cowardice in not accepting a challenge
6.8
No Points of Information may be offered during the Reply Speeches.
6.9
The Etiquette of presenting Points of Information (POI) 6.9.1 A Point of Information is offered by standing and saying “Point of Information” or something similar. The debater on the floor is not obliged to accept every point. He or she may 6.9.1.1
Ask the interrupter to sit down
6.9.1.2
Finish the sentence and then accept the point
6.9.1.3
Accept the point there and then.
6
REFERENCE FOR THE SCORESHEET
1.0
Marks are awarded to each debater according to: SUBSTANCE STRATEGY LANGUAGE STYLE
1.1
SUBSTANCE 1.1.1 Substance covers the arguments that are used and are divorced from the speaking style. It is as if you are seeing the arguments written down rather than spoken. You must assess the weight of the arguments without being influenced by the magnificence of the orator who presented them. 1.1.2 Substance also includes an assessment of the weight of the rebuttal or clash. This assessment must be done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person. 1.1.3 The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of an argument regardless of whether the other team is able to knock it down. If a team introduces weak arguments, it will not score highly in substance, even if the other team does not refute. Two consequences flow from these. 1.1.4 First, if a major argument is plainly weak, an opposing team which does not refute may well have committed greater sin than the team which introduced it. In effect, the team has led the other team to get away with a weak argument. This is not an automatic rule but it is true in many cases. Of course, it must be a major argument, not a minor example which the opposing team correctly chooses to ignore in favour of attacking more significant points. 1.1.5 Second, adjudicators have to be careful not to be influenced by their own beliefs or their own specialized knowledge. For example, if you are a lawyer and you know that a team’s argument was debunked by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, you should probably not take into account this special knowledge unless the ICJ’s decision was a matter of extreme public notoriety.
1.2 STRATEGY 1.2.1 Strategy requires some attention. It covers two concepts: 1.2.1.1
the structure and timing of the speech and 7
1.2.1.2
whether the debater understood the issues of the debate.
1.2.2 Structure A good speech has a clear beginning, middle and end. Along the way, there are signposts to help us see where the debater is going. The sequence of arguments is logical and flows naturally from point to point. This is true of the first debater outlining the Government’s case as it is of the third debater rebutting the Government’s case. Good speech structure, therefore, is one component of the strategy. 1.2.3 Timing is also important, but it must not be taken to extremes. There are two aspects of timing: 1.2.3.1 1.2.3.2
speaking within the allowed time limit and giving an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech
1.2.4 A debater ought to give priority to important issues and leave unimportant ones to later. It is generally a good idea to rebut or begin with an attack on the other side by subsequent debaters before going on to the debater’s own case. This is because it is more logical to get rid of the opposing arguments first before trying to put something in its place. 1.2.5 So, the adjudicator must weigh not only the strength of the arguments in the SUBSTANCE category, but also the proper time and priority given in the STRATEGY category.
1.2.6 Understanding the Issues Closely related to the last point is that the debater should understand what the important issues were in the debate. It is a waste of time for a rebuttal speaker to deal with points if crucial arguments are left unanswered. Such a speaker would not understand the important issues of the debate and should not score well in Strategy. By contrast, a speaker who understood what the issues were and dealt with them thoroughly should score well in Strategy. 1.2.7 It is very important that adjudicators understand the difference between Strategy and Substance. Imagine a debate where a debater answers critical issues with some weak rebuttal. This debater should get poor marks for Substance because the rebuttal was weak but the debater should get reasonable marks for Strategy because the right arguments were being addressed.
8
1.3
LANGUAGE 1.3.1 Language refers to using appropriate expressions containing correct sentence structures and grammar. 1.3.2 It also covers pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity of speech. Of course, English being a foreign language here, adjudicators should not be looking for Queen’s English in our debaters, but any expression which is mumbled or not clearly understood should not merit high marks in the Language section. 1.3.3 On the other hand, any good language expression, including the use of figures of speech, idioms, etc. appropriate and apt to the occasion, may merit positive marks for Language.
1.4
STYLE 1.4.1 The term is rather misleading. Adjudicators are not looking for debaters who are stylish. 1.4.2 Style covers the way the debaters’ speak. This can be noted in many ways, in funny accents, body language (movement, poise, meaningful gestures and eye contact) and with the use of specific terminology. Be tolerant of different ways of presenting arguments. 1.4.3 Use of palm cards and notes are allowed and should not be penalised, unless a debater is reading from them heavily. 1.4.4 Be tolerant of speaking styles and speed of delivery. Penalise only when a debater’s style has gone beyond what everyone would expect.
2.0
REBUTTAL
2.1
The use of general cases has consequences for rebuttal or clash. The Opposition team cannot concentrate on attacking the examples used by the Government. The examples might be weak but the central case might still be sound. Instead, the team will have to concentrate on that case because that is where the debate actually is.
2.2
There is another consequence for rebuttal. It may be that a team has used a number of examples to illustrate the same point. If they can all be disposed off by the same piece of rebuttal, the rebutting team does not have to attack each of the examples individually as well.
9
3.0
THE REPLY SPEECH
3.1
The thematic approach to argument outlined above becomes critical in the Reply Speeches. These have been described as an ‘adjudication from our side’ and really amount to an overview of the major issues in the debate.
3.2
A Reply speaker does not have time to deal with small arguments or individual examples. The debater must deal with the two or three major issues in the debate in global terms, showing how they favour the debater’s team and work against the opposing team. As a general rule, a Reply speaker who descends to the level of dealing with individual examples probably does not understand either the issues of the debate or the principles of good arguments.
4.0
POINTS OF INFORMATION
4.1
A ‘Point of Information’ is offered in the course of speech by a member of the opposing team. The debater may either accept or decline. If accepted, the opponent may make a short point or ask a question that deals with some issues in the debate (preferably one just made by the debater). It is a formal interjection.
4.2
Points of Information bring about a major change in the role of the debaters in a debate. In this style, each debater must take part from beginning to end, not just during their own speech.
4.3
The debaters play this role by offering Points of Information. Even if the points are not accepted, they must still demonstrate that they are involved in the debate by at least offering. A debater who takes no part in the debate other than by making a speech would be marked down for Substance and Strategy.
Note: •
•
The winning teams from the previous year may participate in the current year but the text and presentation must not be an exact replica. This concept paper is valid until further notification or revision from the Ministry of Education and can be used at all levels for competitions organized by the Ministry.
Division of Co-curriculum and Arts Ministry of Education, Malaysia 10
LIST OF EXPRESSIONS TO REQUEST, ACCEPT OR DECLINE POINTS OF INFORMATION
TO REQUEST i. ii. iii. iv. v.
Point of Information, please. Point of Information. P.O.I. please. P.O.I Point.
TO ACCEPT i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.
TO DECLINE i. ii. iii. iv. v.
Yes. Yes, please. Yes, Sir / Miss. Please. Please go ahead. Yes, accepted.
No, thank you. No, thanks. Denied. Sorry, Sir / Miss. Sorry.
If the opponent (during his / her Point (s) of information) is taking too much of your time, you can ask him / her to sit down if he / she has exceeded the 15 seconds’ time limit.
You may use these expressions: i. ii. iii. iv.
Please sit down, Sir / Miss. You are taking too much of my time. You are taking too much of my time. Please sit down. Kindly sit down. You have exceeded the time limit for POI. Your time limit is up.
*** Please note that it is of utmost importance that debaters be polite at all times during the course of the debate especially when accepting or declining Point(s) of Information.
11
GLOSSARY 1. adjudicator
-
a person called to judge a debate to determine the winner
2.
barracking
-
to criticize loudly, shout or jeer against a team or debater
3.
case line
-
please refer to Stand
4.
clarification
-
to seek further information or explanation on matters
5.
comment sheet-
a sheet where the adjudicators write his / her comments during the proceedings of the debate
6.
confer
to discuss and come to a consensus decision
7.
electronic gadgets- electrical items such as computers, handphones, radios, MP3, digital media players, etc.
8.
harassment -
to trouble, torment or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc.
9.
heckling
to interrupt by taunts
10.
majority vote -
the winner is determined by the number of votes given to the winning team
11.
marked down -
please refer to the reduction of marks
12.
point(s) of information
-
a formal interjection where the opposing team can ask questions, clarify, make a remark or correct a word or statement
13.
rebuttal
-
to refute or disprove the opponent’s arguments by offering contrary contentions or arguments
14.
reply speech -
15.
reduction of marks- in Parliamentary Style Debate marks are not deducted from a team’s or individual’s marks but are reduced
16.
Speaker
-
a person who chairs a debate and ensures the smooth running of the proceedings
17.
stand
-
from which angle the team is going to argue the case
18.
strategy
-
how each team member work together to argue the case
19.
substance
-
the arguments presented during the debate
-
-
an arena where a debater will sum up the team’s arguments and then rebut the opposing team’s major arguments brought up during the debate
12
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
ADJUDICATION FORMS
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
TIMING Role 1st Government 1st Opposition 2nd Government 2nd Opposition 3rd Government 3rd Opposition Reply Speech (Opposition) Reply Speech (Government) Timekeeper’s Name Signature Date
Time
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION GOVERNMENT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS SCORESHEET SCHOOL/STATE:
ADJUDICATOR’S
TOPIC :
1
ROLE NAME
TEAM :
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
NAME FIRST GOVERNMENT MARKS
SECOND GOVERNMENT
THIRD GOVERNMENT
REPLY SPEECH
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
14-15
12-13
10-11
8-9
6-7
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
9-10
7-8
5-6
4
3
86100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
86100
7085
5669
4055
2439
86-100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
45-50
3644
3035
2429
18-23
SUBSTANCE (30) STRATEGY (30)
MARKS LANGUAGE (20) STYLE (20) TOTAL (100)
GRAND TOTAL : /350 GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION
WINNING TEAM :
ADJUDICATOR’S NAME : ADJUDICATOR’S SIGNATURE :
DATE :
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION TEAM : OPPOSITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR’S SCORESHEET SCHOOL/STATE:
1
ROLE NAME
TOPIC :
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
NAME FIRST OPPOSITION MARKS
SECOND OPPOSITION
THIRD OPPOSITION
REPLY SPEECH
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
14-15
12-13
10-11
8-9
6-7
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
9-10
7-8
5-6
4
3
86100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
86100
7085
5669
4055
2439
86-100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
45-50
3644
3035
2429
18-23
SUBSTANCE (30) STRATEGY (30)
MARKS LANGUAGE (20) STYLE (20) TOTAL (100)
GRAND TOTAL : /350 GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION
WINNING TEAM :
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION TEAM : OPPOSITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS ADJUDICATOR’S SCORESHEET SCHOOL/STATE:
1
ROLE NAME
TOPIC :
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
NAME FIRST OPPOSITION MARKS
SECOND OPPOSITION
THIRD OPPOSITION
REPLY SPEECH
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
26-30
21-25
16-20
11-15
6-10
14-15
12-13
10-11
8-9
6-7
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
18-20
15-17
12-14
9-11
6-8
9-10
7-8
5-6
4
3
86100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
86100
7085
5669
4055
2439
86-100
70-85
5669
4055
2439
45-50
3644
3035
2429
18-23
SUBSTANCE (30) STRATEGY (30)
MARKS LANGUAGE (20) STYLE (20) TOTAL (100)
GRAND TOTAL : /350 GOVERNMENT/OPPOSITION
WINNING TEAM :
ADJUDICATOR’S NAME : ADJUDICATOR’S SIGNATURE :
DATE :
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________ REPLY SPEECH OPPOSITION
GOVERNMENT
REBUTTAL
REBUTTAL
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________ REPLY SPEECH OPPOSITION
GOVERNMENT
REBUTTAL
REBUTTAL
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
ADJUDICATOR’S NOTES 1
ST
GOVERNMENT
1ST OPPOSITION
2ND GOVERNMENT
2ND OPPOSITION
3RD GOVERNMENT
3RD OPPOSITION
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI(INTERJECTED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI(ANSWERED)
Definition:
Defn – Agree/Refute New Definition :
Defn – Agree/Refute Redefine :
Rebut 2nd Government :
Rebut 2nd Opposition :
Rebut 3rd Government :
Rebut 1st Opposition :
Rebut 2nd Government :
Rebut 1st Government Specify Stand :
Specify Stand :
Rebut 1 st Opposition :
Rebut 1st Government :
Specify Role :
Specify Role :
Argument 2 :
Argument 2 :
Argument 1 :
Argument 1 :
Argument 3 :
Argument 3 :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
POI
POI
POI
POI
Rebut 1 st Government :
Reaffirm Case :
Reaffirm Case :
POI
IP
ADJUDICATOR’S NOTES 1
ST
GOVERNMENT
1ST OPPOSITION
2ND GOVERNMENT
2ND OPPOSITION
3RD GOVERNMENT
3RD OPPOSITION
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
NAME :
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI (INTERJECTED)
POI(INTERJECTED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI (ANSWERED)
POI(ANSWERED)
Definition:
Defn – Agree/Refute New Definition :
Defn – Agree/Refute Redefine :
Rebut 2nd Government :
Rebut 2nd Opposition :
Rebut 3rd Government :
Rebut 1st Opposition :
Rebut 2nd Government :
Rebut 1st Government Specify Stand :
Specify Stand :
Rebut 1 st Opposition :
Rebut 1st Government :
Specify Role :
Specify Role :
Argument 2 :
Argument 2 :
Argument 1 :
Argument 1 :
Argument 3 :
Argument 3 :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
Reaffirm case :
POI
POI
POI
POI
Rebut 1 st Government :
Reaffirm Case :
Reaffirm Case :
POI
IP
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS ELABORATIONS ON ASPECTS OF ADJUDICATION
1.
SUBSTANCE
2.
STRATEGY
3.
Covers structure and time Good speech has beginning, middle and ending Speaking within the time limit Appropriate amount of time given to issues in the speech Focus of rebuttal mainly on main issues presented in the debate Critical issues with weak rebuttal would mean lower score for SUBSTANCE but reasonable marks may be awarded for STRATEGY because the right arguments were addressed
LANGUAGE
4.
Arguments divorced from speaking style Assess weight of rebuttal Assess points of argument Assess weight of argument without influence of oratory
Appropriate expression Correct sentence structure and grammar Pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity Good language and expression appropriately used e.g. idioms and figures of speech
STYLE
Presentation on the way the debaters speak include body language, eye contact and voice modulation. (Be tolerant of speaking style and speed of delivery)
1.
SUBSTANCE
2.
STRATEGY
3.
Covers structure and time Good speech has beginning, middle and ending Speaking within the time limit Appropriate amount of time given to issues in the speech Focus of rebuttal mainly on main issues presented in the debate Critical issues with weak rebuttal would mean lower score for SUBSTANCE but reasonable marks may be awarded for STRATEGY because the right arguments were addressed
LANGUAGE
4.
Arguments divorced from speaking style Assess weight of rebuttal Assess points of argument Assess weight of argument without influence of oratory
Appropriate expression Correct sentence structure and grammar Pronunciation, fluency, rhythm, intonation and clarity Good language and expression appropriately used e.g. idioms and figures of speech
STYLE
Presentation on the way the debaters speak include body language, eye contact and voice modulation. (Be tolerant of speaking style and speed of delivery)
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
RESULTS
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION MALAYSIA
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
RESULT (Adjudicator’s vote)
WINNING TEAM
TEAM
: GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION
Adjudicator’s Signature :
1/2/3/4/5
_____________________________ (
)
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
VOTING
BEST DEBATER
DEBATER
Adjudicator 1
Adjudicato r2
Name
Adjudicato r3
Adjudicator 4
Adjudicato r5
Signature
Chief Adjudicator : ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 1
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 2
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 3
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 4
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Date
: ……………………………………………..
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
RESULT
BEST DEBATER TEAM
:
GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION
NAME
:
_________________________
SCHOOL/STATE
:
_________________________
CHIEF ADJUDICATOR
SIGNATURE : ________________________ (
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION
)
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
RESULT
PRELIMINARY / QUARTER FINAL / SEMI FINAL / FINAL TEAM School / State
WINNING TEAM
BEST DEBATER
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
RESULT
WINNING TEAM
DATUK WIRA DR. ABDUL RAHMAN ARSHAD CHALLENGE TROPHY ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEBATE COMPETITION FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS NATIONAL LEVEL YEAR : __________
RESULT
WINNING TEAM
TEAM
: GOVERNMENT / OPPOSITION Name
Signature
Chief Adjudicator : ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 1
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 2
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 3
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Adjudicator 4
: ……………………………………………..
……………………..
Date
: ……………………………………………..
